I did read the white paper, Tom, yes. Leaving aside your proposed advantages for the moment, if indeed the opposition did not engage with ‘the process’ as you suggest, I imagine there are reasons for that.

The continual demoralisation involved in expending effort to little or no effect. The capitulation of NUS officials to the government, whether while in office or after being rewarded for toeing the line. The corruption of the Labour Students clique involved.

I have no doubt that, if what you say is true – and I imagine many would dispute it – these elements have not made it easy for opponents to a) engage with the proposals, or b) enthuse students about fighting the proposals when it is difficult enough to enthuse students about the NUS as a whole.

Personally, my own disillusionment in this process has been magnified by the sheer jingoism involved. “Simpler Processes, Better Outcomes” – oh how wonderfully nuanced. It’s about as meaningful as George Bush declaring he’s “for freedom” and against “the evil-doers.”

The tone of certain elements of the document are exceptionally vague and patronising. The quote that opens the discussion on Conference democracy really does say a lot for the way that the NUS executive feels about the people who loyally turn up to Conference year on year.

Apparently, us poor bewildered students are too confused as to how conference democracy works to allow it to continue. The ridiculous consultation results such as “Over half of respondents do not feel that the format of conference supports its aims” can be made to speak for almost any reform under the sun.

The reforms to conference go on to outline exactly the problems that one expects from student hacks who look down on democracy as an impediment to getting their own way. “Those elected may not necessarily be the present or future leadership of their student unions…”

That’s not a bad thing. Many of the people who get elected to SU sab positions are the ones who throw parties, give out t-shirts and have no practical idea what student politics is about beyond one’s own CV. I give the recent elections at my third university as example.

The people elected as delegates to NUS conference are people who stand on principle. Having seen NUS Conference work, there’s certainly no glory in it whatsoever. I’m all in favour of having the national organisation directly accountable to students, rather than even more in bed with the many careerist hacks who seek sabbatical positions.

“There are few sanctions that can be imposed for delegates who do not vote in accordance with their Student Unions.” My answer to that is awww diddums, do the nasty students not vote the way you would like? Well bloody tough.

Anyway, I could go on like this, point by point deconstructing the NUS policy document – but I don’t really feel the need. I’ve made my opinion expressly clear and I can read as well as you can.

Advantage #1: Better FE representation with 5 places on the block of 15 reserved for FE. Also a annual FE conference for all the issues to be heard and obviously not dominated by the large HE institutions.

Advantage #2: Zone conference – for the different policy areas. You may call this bureacratic but these day conferences will allow for policy to be discussed in depth, rather then the pantomine that is NUS conference currently.

Advantage #3: A new board – responsible for the administration of the NUS. Fact is the NUS had a deficit of over a million pounds last year due to poor management. Some call this activism, most students I know think this is a farce and unfortunately without a change in governance next time the NUS faces bankruptcy we may not be able to dodge it like last time.

Advantage #4: Conference would become ‘Congress’ or what we understand as an AGM. So Congress will pass the budget, call the Senate and the board to account – and yes be a celebration where we can share best practice, hold a wider range of fringe events and meet other activists from around the country.

Besides the old rhetoric from the tired, old faces I would love to see some genuine proposals for how the governance could be improved.

Throughout this year long process the factions who opposed the current president never engaged with the process and never suggested an alternative proposal.

Instead they have opposed all reform. Even though reform is desperately desired by the vast majority of unions around the country.

And the fact is those proposals recieved the support of 64% of conference, they were 2% short of an absolute majority.

Change is needed, if you don’t like what’s offered suggest something different.

Advantage #1: Better FE representation with 5 places on the block of 15 reserved for FE. Also a annual FE conference for all the issues to be heard and obviously not dominated by the large HE institutions.

Advantage #2: Zone conference – for the different policy areas. You may call this bureacratic but these day conferences will allow for policy to be discussed in depth, rather then the pantomine that is NUS conference currently.

Advantage #3: A new board – responsible for the administration of the NUS. Fact is the NUS had a deficit of over a million pounds last year due to poor management. Some call this activism, most students I know think this is a farce and unfortunately without a change in governance next time the NUS faces bankruptcy we may not be able to dodge it like last time.

Advantage #4: Conference would become ‘Congress’ or what we understand as an AGM. So Congress will pass the budget, call the Senate and the board to account – and yes be a celebration where we can share best practice, hold a wider range of fringe events and meet other activists from around the country.

Besides the old rhetoric from the tires faces I would love to see some genuine proposals for how the governance could be improved.

Fact is throughout this year long process the factions who opposed the current president never engaged with the process and never suggested an alternative proposal.

Instead they have opposed all reform. Even though reform is desperately desired by the vast majority of unions around the country.

And the fact is those proposals recieved the support of 64% of conference, they were 2% short of an absolute majority.

Change is needed, if you don’t like what’s offered suggest something different.